Letters

To the Editor: I would like to clarify a misunderstanding that may result from the Lawyers Weekly item, “SJC Hears ‘Ellis’ Insurance Case.” (What’s Up On The Hill, Jan. 11.) The article concludes with a sentence that the Massachusetts Bar ...

To the Editor: I was a little shocked by the tone of your editorial, “The ‘Problem’ With Pro Ses” (Dec. 14). It repeatedly defines the people themselves (the pro se litigants) as a problem. I am sure you do not ...

To the Editor: I was pleased to see your editorial of Nov. 23 regarding unauthorized practice of law. This is the tip of the iceberg and it is doubtful that the attorney general is the one who should be investigating ...

A copy of this letter directed to Supreme Judicial Court administrator Robert S. Bloom was sent to Lawyers Weekly. Dear Mr. Bloom: I was greatly surprised and disappointed by the views expressed in Lawyers Weekly by several lawyers and associations ...

To the Editor: Your publication does a disservice when you use the shorthand expression “pro bono” to describe that portion of a lawyer’s public duty. As a result, a substantial number of lawyers believe that “pro bono” means “for free.” ...

To the Editor: Through learning about the rules as they were proposed, we believe private ADR practitioners have been able to understand the extent, if any, to which the Uniform Rules for Court-Connected ADR might affect their practices. It is ...

To the Editor: The legal community suffered a great loss last week with the passing of Dorothy Parks. A former assistant chief of probation in the Juvenile Court in Boston, she was both the kindest and wisest person I have ...

To the Editor: I commend you for a clear and well-presented report of the extraordinary verdict in the Valenti matter (“$6M Verdict For Legal Malpractice Stuns Bar,” Nov. 9). One feature not mentioned that younger readers in particular might want ...